Guest Column: Media make odd choices on what merits scrutiny

Paul Wolfowitz recently admitted in Vanity Fair that there were "bureaucratic reasons" that the charge of weapons of mass destruction was used to justify a war on Iraq.

Apparently, those reasons had more to do with getting everyone "on board" with the war than with the actual threat posed by those WMD.

And in late April, a White House official told ABC News, "We were not lying; it was a matter of emphasis." The administration's emphasis was on 25,000 liters of anthrax; 38,000 liters of botulinum toxins; 500 tons of Sarin, VX and mustard gas; and the 30,000 munitions to deliver them that do not appear to exist.

"A matter of emphasis" and "bureaucratic reasons" sound eerily similar to the "depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is" circumlocution that involved a $70-million grand jury investigation.

Only these verbal evasions resulted in much more serious casualties than a blue dress: Nearly 150 (and counting) American troops killed, thousands of dead Iraqis and the credibility of the United States.

Interestingly, this obfuscation and wordplay may result in another regime change as the Labour MPs in Tony Blair's United Kingdom start to question the evidence, or lack thereof, the prime minister used to justify invading Iraq.

It seems that in addition to the plagiarized dossier (lifted from a thesis paper written around the time of the first Gulf War), the prime minister, and President Bush for that matter, were relying on documents that seemed to indicate the purchase of 500 tons of uranium by Iraq from Niger.

Those documents turned out to be crude forgeries - even the CIA communicated its doubts about their validity.

It remains to be seen what will become of Blair, but what is certain is the pressure will only intensify with each passing day that a significant cache of WMD is not found.

So what? you may ask. What's the big deal?

We got Saddam out. That's what's important, isn't it?

Well, no, it isn't. As bad as Saddam was (and who knows, may be again), the lack of WMD and the easy collapse of Iraq point to one inescapable conclusion:

Iraq posed no threat to the security of the United States or Britain. And the ramifications are much more significant than the overthrow of one tinhorn dictator.

First, the death of American troops in a war that was not necessary. If, as the administration claimed time and again leading up to the war, weapons of mass destruction - that we knew Saddam possessed and was capable of using within 45 minutes - were the only reason for invading Iraq, then the absence of those weapons invalidates the war, and the loss of American life as a result was unnecessary.

Second, the death of Iraqi civilians in a war that cannot be justified can only incite more violence and hatred toward the United States. Unfortunately, children, wives, husbands, fathers and mothers died as a direct result of our campaign. Families, not dissimilar to our own, were devastated and torn apart for Wolfowitz's "bureaucratic reasons."

It is hard to imagine that we could win the hearts and minds of a father who lost a daughter or a young boy who lost his parents during the shock and awe of bombing Baghdad. It is much more plausible that al-Qaida, which was able to reconstitute itself while we diverted time and resources to invading Iraq, gained more recruits.

Third, the credibility of the United States has been compromised. Like the mischievous youth who cried wolf, the United States has expended credibility by crying danger when none existed.

The next time a real danger, such as North Korea, Iran or even al-Qaida, rears its ugly head, will the rest of the world, including the United Kingdom, play the part of the incredulous townspeople and ignore our calls for help?

And for those who believe we can fight a stateless terrorist organization or invade and rebuild another country alone, I invite you to take a look at the assistance that has been provided by Germany, France, Spain and other countries in rooting out terrorist cells and the toll being paid by our troops in occupying Afghanistan and Iraq virtually alone.

George Bush promised honor and integrity. During the run up to war with Iraq, it appears that we got exaggeration and obfuscation.

If the willful intent of the Bush administration was to mislead the public into thinking that Saddam Hussein posed a grave and imminent threat to the security of the United States, then surely that would justify a grand jury investigation much more than a failed land deal or spotted dress would.

But instead of the constant, unyielding scrutiny we saw when an untruthful president had an extramarital affair, the media remain comparatively silent about an untruthful president who led us into war.